It’s entirely natural and right to look for solutions to tragic violence like we’ve seen today but I’m afraid that the problem is far more difficult than access to weapons. The problem is that too many want these weapons for evil purposes.

Fixing that is much harder than passing laws. It means taking better care of each other.

It is somehow easier for us to get angry about the guns than it is to respond with love to the troubled ones in our midst who too often go on to take the lives of others. Liberals will say that this happened because of the guns; and there are too many guns. Conservatives will say this happened because of one man’s evil choices; and that’s true too.

Something went terribly wrong but it started long before today and had nothing whatever to do with guns.

It happened when we decided that we didn’t care enough to care for the man who committed these horrible crimes.

There is a significant difference between secular marriage in general and sacramental Holy Matrimony. Scripture presents this higher, more demanding, ethic of Holy Union as rightly centered on Christ, lived out within a community of faith, marked by mutual love of other as self with the expectation and intention of a life-long commitment, and an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. The example of Paul’s counter-cultural demands upon husbands in relation to their wives in Ephesians 5:22-33 illustrates the way in which the Church’s understanding of marriage is not merely a reflection of the culture it inhabits. In addition to these scriptural considerations it is important that the Book of Common Prayer speaks of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. The Church should continue to assert its distinctive view of Holy Matrimony over against changing secular understandings of marriage.

Summary

Rev. Dill argues that a significant difference exists between secular marriage in general and Holy Matrimony as the Church understands it. He notes that while the state may provide legal requirements for couples entering into marriage it is up to the Church to define what marriage will be for us. Dill suggests four clear points regarding Holy Matrimony gleaned from Scripture.

• Marriage is to be centered on Christ, both for the individuals and couple together.
• A married couple’s life together is to be lived out within a parish or equivalent community of faith.
• Marriage calls for love of other as self; mutual giving, sacrifice and servant-hood; fidelity, honesty, and the expectation of a commitment to a life-long bond.
• Finally, marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman.

The character of Holy Matrimony thus established Dill proceeds to illustrate the way the Church has held to a higher ethic of Holy Union than the wider culture by noting that while the expressions of a wife’s role in marriage follows the cultural norms of his day Paul places additional expectations on husbands in Ephesians 5:22-33. Specifically, Paul demands that husbands “love their wives as they do their own bodies.” Paul, and the early Church, therefore asserted a much more mutual marital relationship than was required by the wider society.

Dill next notes that the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) states that “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman” (422). Holy Matrimony, unlike secular marriage in general, is understood to be a sacrament primarily understood and expressed within the fellowship of active members of the Church. For this reason, the Church should not attempt to make accommodation to changing secular definitions of marriage, both over time and from state to state.

Dill then suggests that the central question facing the Church is whether we should modify the sacramental act, as defined by scripture and the BCP, or is the sacramental act essentially true and complete as the Church has traditionally understood it. In other words, should individuals and communities conform to the tradition or should the tradition accommodate the perspectives of individuals and their communities? The answer, as Dill discerns it, is that we are called to follow the guide of Scripture, reason, and tradition and maintain a traditional understanding of Holy Matrimony as both distinct from and more demanding than secular marriage and as an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman.

Compiled and edited by Derek Michaud, 21^st Sunday after Pentecost, 2012.

The Episcopal Church asked the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to “collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for the blessing of same-gender relationships (Resolution 2009-C056). This text was written in response to that call and is offered as a resource for reflection on how God is working in the committed relationships of same-gender couples. The text consists of four primary sections, each expanding on a theme. Section one affirms the understanding that everything we do as Christians is meant to express the Church’s call to participate in God’s own mission in the world. The second section offers theological reflections on blessing. The third considers blessing same-gender couples within the broader sacramental life of the Church, especially in light of the theological significance of covenantal relationship. The fourth section reflects on the challenge of living into our baptismal covenant in the midst of disagreements over biblical interpretation.

1. The Church’s Call:A Focus on Mission (13-20)

Holy Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ and commissions us to participate in God’s mission of reconciliation in the world (2 Corinthians 5:17-19). The purpose of this reconciling mission is nothing less than the restoration of all people to “unity with God and with each other in Christ.’” One of the ways Christians participate in this mission is by witnessing to Christ in how we live in our closest relationships. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples,” Jesus said, “if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). The Church, therefore, commissions a couple bound by sacred vows in Holy Matrimony to participate in God’s mission of reconciliation. Such relationships are set apart to bear witness to and participate in the creating, redeeming, and sustaining love of God. Many in the Episcopal Church have witnessed these characteristics in the committed relationships of same-gender couples.

2. The Church’s Joy: A Theology of Blessing (21-27)

“Blessing” exhibits a multifaceted character, yet the Church has always affirmed that blessing originates in God, the giver of every good gift. The Church participates in God’s blessing of committed, covenantal couples in three intertwined ways: first, we thank God for the grace already discerned in the lives of the couple; second, we ask God’s continual favor so that the couple may manifest more fully the fruits of the Spirit; and third, we seek the empowerment of the Holy Spirit as the Church commissions the couple to bear witness to the gospel in the world. This threefold character of blessing acknowledges what is already present-God’s goodness. The Church expects the blessing of a covenantal relationship to bear the fruits of divine grace in particular ways, always with God’s continual help and favor. This makes the couple accountable to the community of faith as well as to God and to one another. The community, in turn, is held accountable for encouraging, supporting, and nurturing a blessed relationship as the couple seeks to grow together in holiness of life. Through its participation in the blessing of covenantal relationships, the Church is blessed by the goodness of God.

3. The Church’s Life: Covenantal Relationship (28-53)

Reflecting on same-gender relationships is an occasion for the Church to reflect more broadly on the significance of covenantal commitment in the life of faith. Both Scripture and our theological traditions invite us to consider, first, the sacramental character of covenantal relationships; that is the potential of such relationships to become outward and visible signs of God’s grace. And second, covenantal relationships can both reflect and inspire the eschatological vision of Christian life (the realization of the fullness of God’s Kingdom). The covenantal commitments we make with each other, in other words, can evoke our desire for union with God, which is our final hope in Christ. Our understanding of covenant thus derives first and foremost from the gracious covenant God makes with us in Christ.

The covenants made by intimate couples carry the potential to reflect and bear witness to that divine covenant. Scripture and Christian tradition encourage us to see in these intimate relationships a reflection of God’s own desire for us. For example, the biblical Song of Songs illustrates this spiritual significance of sexual relationships. Hebrew prophets likewise turned frequently to the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s commitment to Israel (Isaiah 62:5), an image the Paul also used to describe the relationship of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:21-33). Covenantal commitments are thus shaped by and can also reflect the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, which the Church celebrates in baptism and eucharist. Intimate couples who live in a sacred covenant find themselves swept up into a grand and risky endeavor: to see if they can find their life in God by giving it to another. This dynamic reflects the baptismal life all of us share as Christians. This sacramental framework leads us to consider more carefully several other key theological themes: the vocational aspect of covenantal relationship; how such a vocation is lived in Christian households; the fruitfulness of covenantal relationships in lives of service, generosity, and hospitality; and mutual blessing, as God’s blessing in covenantal relationship becomes a blessing to the wider community.

4. The Church’s Challenge: Christian Unity and Biblical Interpretation (54-62)

Baptism binds us to God and to one another. This bond does not depend on our agreement with one another but instead relies on what God has done and is doing among us. In fact, our unity in God gives us room to disagree safely, ideally without threat of breaking our unity, which is God’s own gift. Our common call as God’s people is not to find unanimity in all matters of faith and morals, but to go out into all nations as witnesses to the good news of God in Christ.

Christians nevertheless recognize limits to acceptable and legitimate differences. Beyond such limits, unity becomes untenable. We who differ profoundly and yet desire unity more profoundly recall that the Church has held this creative tension in the past. In Acts 15, we see that Paul differed from the community in Jerusalem over whether circumcision and the observation of dietary laws should be required of Gentiles in order for them to be baptized into Christ’s Body. This was a matter of biblical interpretation and as Church members held the tension between their essential unity and their differences they found themselves guided by the Holy Spirit. Since then, the Church has faced many other similar moments of discernment concerning a wide range of questions: whether vowed religious life takes priority over marriage, the prohibition on lending money at interest, divorce and remarriage, the institution of slavery, and the role of women in both Church and society, for example. In all these, the Church has sought to follow a process of prayerful deliberation, which respects the centrality of Scripture and attends carefully to the Spirit’s work among us.

Compiled and edited by Derek Michaud, 21^st Sunday after Pentecost, 2012.

Confirmed keynote addresses from: Nicky Hallett (University of Sheffield), Matthew Milner (McGill University), & Chris Woolgar (University of Southampton)

Religion has always been characterised as much by embodied experience as by abstract theological dispute. From the sounds of the adhān (the Islamic call to prayer), to the smell of incense in the HinduPūjā (a ritual offering to the deities), the visual emblem of the cross in the Christian tradition, and the ascetic practices of Theravada Buddhism, sensation is integral to a range of devotional practices. At the same time, the history of many faiths is characterised by an intense suspicion of the senses and the pleasures they offer.

This international, interdisciplinary conference, to be held at the University of York from 21 to 22 June 2013, will bring together scholars working on the role played by the senses in the experience and expression of religion and faith in the pre-modern world. The burgeoning field of sensory history offers a fertile ground for reconsideration of religious studies across disciplinary boundaries. We welcome papers from anthropologists, archaeologists, art historians, historians, literary scholars, musicologists, philosophers, theologians, and any other interested parties.

Possible topics might include, but are by no means limited to:

• Synaesthesia: how do religious rituals blur sensory boundaries, and challenge sensory hierarchies?
• Iconography and iconoclasm: how might we conceive the ‘rites of violence’ in sensory terms? How does iconography engage the non-visual senses?
• The senses and conversion: how are the senses used to elicit conversion?
• Material cultures of religion: what role do the senses play in mediating between bodies and sacred objects?
• The senses and gender: are sensing practices gender specific?
• The inner (spiritual) senses: how do they relate to the external (bodily) senses?
• Sensory environments: to what extent do environments shape devotional practices and beliefs, and vice versa? How do we use our senses to orient ourselves in space?
• Affect: what role do the senses play in the inculcation of religious affect?

Proposals (max. 300 words) for papers of 20 minutes are welcomed both from established scholars, and from postgraduate students. Applications from panels of three speakers are encouraged, as well as individual proposals. They should be sent to conference organisersRobin Macdonald, Emilie Murphy, and Elizabeth Swann by 6pm on 5 November 2012. Download the Sensing the Sacred Poster.

Envisioning Alternative Academic Careers
Amy Hale, PhD

Sunday, October 7, 2012, 1:00-4:00pm
Boston University
Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Room 201
147 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215

How do we sustain ourselves as scholars when most academic jobs are casual and part-time? In 2005, adjuncts made up 57% of the faculty at Harvard and 70% at Boston University. The shift away from tenure-track positions has only continued, creating new financial, social, and emotional challenges for those who entered academia hoping for professorships. This new academic job market demands a creative, entrepreneurial approach to making a living – as well as the willingness to collaborate in maintaining the academy’s mission to serve the public.

This three-hour workshop is designed to help academics in the Humanities and Social Sciences to approach academic work as only one part of a wider picture that potentially integrates a variety of income streams.  Participants will examine their own history and relationships to academia, and become more empowered through discovering marketable skill sets they may not know they possess. We will strategically build sustainable life strategies, considering what activities and relationships bring us real joy and can therefore be maintained in the long term. Finally, we will discuss what scholars can do as a group to support meaningful liberal arts education in a time of economic crisis.

Participants will have the opportunity to:

• Reframe the issue of work/life balance in the context of an academic career
• Describe their abilities in terms of generalizable skill sets
• Consider the role of online teaching in twenty-first-century education
• Explore the personal and professional benefits of collaboration
• Begin to build a broad-based network that supports scholars individually, while also furthering sustainable alternative and traditional environments for scholarship

Amy Hale has been working as an “adjunctpreneur” for a decade and has built a successful career through combining online teaching in the Humanities, course design, consulting and research. She makes her home in Oakland, CA, where she also enjoys singing barbershop, lifting weights, gardening, dancing, writing and enjoying the company of her husband and two cats. Explore Amy’s blog on alternative academic careers and online teaching: http://www.amyhale.weatherlight.com/

********

Christine Hoff Kraemer will facilitate this session; she is a member of New England Maritimes Region of the American Academy of Religion (NEMAAR) and her own alternative career path of writing and teaching through the internet-based Cherry Hill Seminary inspired her to propose this event.

This event is sponsored by NEMAAR; it follows up on focus groups convened by Regional Coordinator Grove Harris in response to concerns of members of the region.

This event is free to attend, but space is limited. Please RSVP to Christine Kraemer atchkraemer13@gmail.com.

Douthat is a journalist who as written often on religion, ethics, and social policy, and Butler Bass is a historian of Christianity by training. Both are familiar with the traditions and theologies of their traditions however neither has argued their recent theological dispute on truly theological grounds. No amount of historical study can lead one to an answer about what should be. No amount of observation in the public sphere can possibly show which way the churches should proceed. Answers to such questions can only come, and Butler Bass knows this well, from prayerful discernment of the ongoing presence of the Spirit in and through a faith community. Such answers are the stuff of revelation not calculation.

Both Douthat and Butler Bass have what strikes this life-long Episcopalian and theologian as a convert’s zeal, as well as naivete in their recent exchanges. They are both obviously “true believers” who admirably speak from a passionate and apparently personal perspective. They obviously care deeply about the Church, and that is to be commended. However they both, often, confuse an assessment of what was or now is the case with what should be. No amount of statistics, of any kind, can possibly tell us what the Church should be or what the Church should look like. No matter how hard you try you simply cannot squeeze a value out of a fact - especially when you don’t even agree on the facts!

Both authors are concerned with matters of value in the end, but their arguments with each other, thus far at least, have been about the interpretation of demographic data. Both seem to want to make a theological or philosophical claim but neither have thus far done so. To be fair, they both go into far more constructive theological reflection in their recently published books, but if their disagreement is a theological one (and it sure seems to be) then where is the theological case in this public debate?

Both authors rely heavily on what seems to be equally ideological theories of history. For Douthat, history is the story of a long slow decline of culture if not civilization. Holding on to tradition is therefore a moral imperative for him; a check against the otherwise inevitable. Butler Bass on the other hand, seems to have the Hegelian optimism of a 1960s liberal; humanity is progressing toward a better way (think the utopia of Star Trek’s Federation of Planets).

These ideologies of history combine, I think, with their personal experience to color their views of the current situation in ways that neither has acknowledged openly during the current debate. Both authors write as if their arguments are based simply on observed facts. Both use statistics to suggest that the liberal Church is leading the way to destruction or rebirth but they seem to be really talking about in what the liberal Church should result.

Butler Bass shows the marks of her upbringing in an individualistic and experience based form of Christianity (American Protestantism). So, is it any surprise that she champions an experiential, “spiritual but not religious” approach to church “after religion”? Douthat hails from the liberal bastion of San Francisco and after a stint as a Pentecostal ran to Rome (the Roman Catholic Church) for the safety of sure foundations in tradition, doctrine, and leadership. Apparently what was sensible and comfortable for him is also what is most rational and necessary for the survival of “Christianity” too. It’s all a little too convenient isn’t it?

Now, everyone comes to their views on moral and theological issues from the kind of personal perspective that I’m noting in Butler Bass and Douthat. It’s simply not possible, or virtuous, to leave behind who you are when dealing with issues of value that matter so much to one’s self and one’s community. But when the argument you put forward relies more on “data” and statistics than on an exposition of your deepest values and the spiritual/theological reasons for why you hold them, it comes off like you’re hiding behind the numbers. I have no way of knowing really but I suspect that behind their talk of membership trends and the like lies competing convictions about what is true, and good, and beautiful about the life of faith. If so, those are the articles we need to see.

~DM

p.s. This post, which first appeared at News & Musings, was revised significantly after an email exchange with Richard Bass who kindly pointed out areas where I may have been less than fair in my all too brief assessment of the personal stories of my subjects. I hope that this revision is free from those problems.

Ever since Descartes, the soul understood as immediate mental consciousness has tended to stand as a last bastion securing religious belief against naturalistic reduction. But today that bastion is under assault from the ‘new atheists’. However, the bastion is proving very hard to storm, with increasing numbers of even atheist thinkers denying that its capture by neuroscience will ever prove possible. Meanwhile, more subtle naturalisms are arguing that the body and the environment as well as the brain are involved in thinking processes. Thus we are seeing the emergence of a tripartite debate between lingering dualism, outright denial of the reality of mind and various accounts of mind-body unity, sometimes embracing panpsychism. Within this third option there exists scope to revisit traditional, pre-Cartesian monothesitic accounts of the soul as the form of the body as well as the site of an immortal spark of reason. This debate is of crucial cultural significance, because, if the last bastion cannot be stormed, it will throw the intellectual coherence of naturalism into doubt and encourage a new intellectual boldness on the part of believers. Since most people assume, against naturalism, the reality of things like free will, intentionality and love, it might well be that religion, rather than scientism, will soon be generally perceived as more aligned with common sense. For if mind and soul are not readily derivable from below, must they not rather be derivable from above? The topic of this conference therefore could not be more crucial and timely.

Call for Papers in November 2012

Bookings from January 2013 with accommodation (breakfast and dinner inclusive) from approximately £220 (student) and £320 (professional)

 

Douthat is a journalist who as written often on religion, ethics, and social policy, and Butler Bass is a historian of Christianity by training. Both are familiar with the traditions and theologies of their traditions however neither has argued their recent theological dispute on truly theological grounds. No amount of historical study can lead one to an answer about what should be. No amount of observation in the public sphere can possibly show which way the churches should proceed. Answers to such questions can only come, and Butler Bass knows this well, from prayerful discernment of the ongoing presence of the Spirit in and through a faith community. Such answers are the stuff of revelation not calculation.

Both Douthat and Butler Bass have what strikes this life-long Episcopalian and theologian as a convert’s zeal, as well as naivete in their recent exchanges. They are both obviously “true believers” who admirably speak from a passionate and apparently personal perspective. They obviously care deeply about the Church, and that is to be commended. However they both, often, confuse an assessment of what was or now is the case with what should be. No amount of statistics, of any kind, can possibly tell us what the Church should be or what the Church should look like. No matter how hard you try you simply cannot squeeze a value out of a fact - especially when you don’t even agree on the facts!

Both authors are concerned with matters of value in the end, but their arguments with each other, thus far at least, have been about the interpretation of demographic data. Both seem to want to make a theological or philosophical claim but neither have thus far done so. To be fair, they both go into far more constructive theological reflection in their recently published books, but if their disagreement is a theological one (and it sure seems to be) then where is the theological case in this public debate?

Both authors rely heavily on what seems to be equally ideological theories of history. For Douthat, history is the story of a long slow decline of culture if not civilization. Holding on to tradition is therefore a moral imperative for him; a check against the otherwise inevitable. Butler Bass on the other hand, seems to have the Hegelian optimism of a 1960s liberal; humanity is progressing toward a better way (think the utopia of Star Trek’s Federation of Planets).

These ideologies of history combine, I think, with their personal experience to color their views of the current situation in ways that neither has acknowledged openly during the current debate. Both authors write as if their arguments are based simply on observed facts. Both use statistics to suggest that the liberal Church is leading the way to destruction or rebirth but they seem to be really talking about in what the liberal Church should result.

Butler Bass shows the marks of her upbringing in an individualistic and experience based form of Christianity (American Protestantism). So, is it any surprise that she champions an experiential, “spiritual but not religious” approach to church “after religion”? Douthat hails from the liberal bastion of San Francisco and after a stint as a Pentecostal ran to Rome (the Roman Catholic Church) for the safety of sure foundations in tradition, doctrine, and leadership. Apparently what was sensible and comfortable for him is also what is most rational and necessary for the survival of “Christianity” too. It’s all a little too convenient isn’t it?

Now, everyone comes to their views on moral and theological issues from the kind of personal perspective that I’m noting in Butler Bass and Douthat. It’s simply not possible, or virtuous, to leave behind who you are when dealing with issues of value that matter so much to one’s self and one’s community. But when the argument you put forward relies more on “data” and statistics than on an exposition of your deepest values and the spiritual/theological reasons for why you hold them, it comes off like you’re hiding behind the numbers. I have no way of knowing really but I suspect that behind their talk of membership trends and the like lies competing convictions about what is true, and good, and beautiful about the life of faith. If so, those are the articles we need to see.

~DM

p.s. This post was revised significantly after an email exchange with Richard Bass who kindly pointed out areas where I may have been less than fair in my all too brief assessment of the personal stories of my subjects. I hope that this revision is free from those problems.

In commemoration of the 1600th anniversary of the birth in Constantinople of Proclus, fourth last head of the Platonic Academy, we invite scholars to present papers both on Proclus’ own thought and his reception in the Abrahamic traditions.

Prof. Carlos Steel (K.U. Leuven) will give the keynote lecture. Prof. Wayne J. Hankey (Dalhousie University / University of King’s College (Halifax)) will give the plenary lecture on the Christian reception. Prof. Dimitri Gutas (Yale University), the Islamic reception. Prof. Tzvi Langermann (Bar-Ilan University), the Jewish reception. Prof. D. O’Meara (Universität Freiburg) will give a public lecture on Proclus’ influence on the architecture of the Haggia Sophia, together with a choral concert of sacred music by the chamber choir, ChorIstanbul.

Contact: David Butorac at Proclusinistanbul@gmail.com

The advisory committee includes:
Carlos Steel (K.U. Leuven)
Wayne J. Hankey (Dalhousie / University of King’s College (Halifax))
Dimitri Gutas (Yale University)
Marije Martijn (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam)
Bert van den Berg (Leiden)
Dominic O’Meara (Freibourg)